Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Thanks for the link. It's good to read widely on this issue, so one can make an informed decision when the time comes.

I did just want to point out that this meta-analysis was performed on COHORT studies and NOT randomized-controlled trials, so issues of bias do need to be addressed. (And I have not read the entire article, so maybe the authors do delve into those issues in greater depth.)

Also, do you follow this part of the abstract?

"We used data from patients followed up in seven of the cohorts in the era before the introduction of combination therapy (1989-95) to estimate distributions of lead times (from the first CD4 cell count measurement in an upper range to the upper threshold of a lower range) and unseen AIDS and death events (occurring before the upper threshold of a lower CD4 cell count range is reached) in the absence of treatment. These estimations were used to impute completed datasets in which lead times and unseen AIDS and death events were added to data for treated patients in deferred therapy groups."

Your thoughts on this methodology and how it may have impacted their findings?

sid,The methodology used (using co=hort studies), I believe gave enough compelling evidence to come to the authors conclusion. Randomized controlled trials would certainly be definitive, however, that would take years for conclusive evidence. The evidence found in this study, using the patient population as observed (and other studies) was enough to recommend starting ART at a cd4 count of between 350 -450 in the new guidelines.

On a personal note, I started medication in 1991 with a cd4 count of 350. Today they are 1300.

Do you feel that some data being estimated causes such an anomaly, making it questionable for the authors to come to their conclusion ? I believe the margin of error is minimal.

I accept their methodology due to the number of patients studied. A randomized controlled study with a population that large would almost be prohibitive.

Cohort studies by themselves can lead to wrong conclusions about medical interventions because the reasons why some subjects do/do not start medication at a given CD4 level is NOT random and the subjects in the two groups differ in ways that can't always be measured.

Forging forward with endorsing treatment based solely upon the findings of cohort studies only (and the marketing departments of pharmaceutical companies and the research/speaking engagements of MDs who accept honorariums from them) has led to problems before (e.g. HRT treatment of pre/peri/postmenopausal women) and the wrong-headed approach was only brought to light when a well-designed RCT was done.

I'm glad to hear of your current CD4 count. However, I'm betting that the medication(s) you're on now are not those that you were on in 1991. Again, I'm glad to hear of your particulars, but it's not really relevant to the discussion of this article.

It's not what I "feel" (or "believe") about the data, it's what I *THINK* about the data. And their description of using estimates of the distribution of unseen AIDS events and deaths to *IMPUTE* (i.e. make up!) completed data sets raises my suspicions. That said, I haven't yet read the full article but will at some point.

Accepting their methodology due to the number of patients studied is frankly, laughable. A large study with systematic bias and incorrect underlying assumptions may result in tighter confidence intervals around the point estimate(s) for the outcome(s), but it doesn't change the fact that the conclusions are wrong.

I'm not saying that these conclusions are necessarily wrong (like I said, I have yet to read the full article), but it's NOT, by any stretch, a definitive statement about when to start ARVs. Personally, I am wary about the new trend to push for starting meds at higher CD4 counts and I don't see strong data coming forth to justify this trend.

I understand your concern with starting meds early. Upon reviewing your numbers , hopefully, you will not have to make that decision for awhile. But, for those in the danger zone now, the guidelines say to start at 350. The evidence is mounting.

You seem to see in these studies only what you want to see and you appear to be very willing to trust the methods and interpretations of any paper whose conclusion matches your preconceived notion of what is right ("...by discriminating the data as best they could.")

The studies are all we have to go by. You seem to be distrustful of everyone and every thing. Having this disease is no walk in the park, however wishing that it didn't happen to oneself is not helpful.

As far as believing the hype is concerned, I've seen too many friends die that believed as you do that there is some giant conspiracy out there to keep those who are positive sick to keep the machine rolling. I don't buy it. The rewards to the researcher that finds the cure are immeasurable and they are all competitive enough to go for it.

As far as "my preconceived notions" are concerned, I know this disease can kill you and trying to find the sweet spot to begin therapy for everyone is daunting. You wait too long you can do irreparable damage to your immune system. You start too soon you run the risk of AEs from meds ,not to mention the hassle and cost. Guess what, I'll take my chances with the AEs and the hassle before I'd run the risk of destroying my immune system. You decide for yourself what you want to do.

For what ever your reason is for not starting meds early, I doubt it's unigue and there is someone on these forums that have experienced the same. Everyone has concerns about starting medications.Lay the anger down. Look at your decisions logically and make the right one.

I hope they find a cure before you have to disclose your deep down fears to the world.

This will be my last comment on your ridiculous thread. My cat has demonstrated on numerous occasions better logical reasoning than you have here. I don't have the time and energy to correspond with a zealot fueled by ignorance.

"You seem to be distrustful of everyone and every thing." NOT TRUE.

"...that believed as you do that there is some giant conspiracy out there..." I NEVER MENTIONED A "GIANT CONSPIRACY".

"You decide for yourself what you want to do." ALWAYS HAVE, ALWAYS WILL.

"For what ever [sic] your reason is for not starting meds early...." UM, TAKE A LOOK AT MY NUMBERS. DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT ANY FURTHER TO YOU?

"Look at your decisions logically and make the right one." ALWAYS HAVE, ALWAYS WILL.

"I hope they find a cure before you have to disclose your deep down fears to the world." LOL! YOU'RE A MESS. YOU'RE FAR TOO PATHETIC TO BE ANNOYING.